I've been away from my computer and the outside world for three days, so am trying to catch up on a number of things, including the news. The one piece of news that jumps out is the incredible and audacious assault on the Catholic Church by the State of Connecticut. Hopefully you already know about this story, but just in case, here are the basics from Catholic News Agency:
"If this bill were to be enacted, your bishop, would have virtually, virtually no real relationship with the 87 parishes…they could go off independently, some of them could break off from the Church if they wished, and go their own way as has happened, for example, with the Episcopal Church. And the pastors would be figureheads, simply working for a board of trustees," Bishop Lori explained at a meeting of Catholic school principals.
The bill, which was introduced last Thursday by the chairs of the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, Senator Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Representative Michael Lawlor of East Haven, attempts to radically restructure the way that the state allows the Catholic Church to incorporate.
Both lawmakers, who are prominent homosexuals, have been vociferous advocates of same-sex marriage in Connecticut and have spoken out against the Catholic Church’s opposition to both civil unions and same-sex marriage.
(UPDATE: Here is a link to the proposed bill, PDF format.) So much for the sacred "separation of Church and State." So much for the benign and supposedly high-minded intentions of "same sex marriage" zealots. The aim, it seems quite evident, is to strip the bishop of all power and to eventually take over control of the finances and properties of the Catholic Church in Connecticut.
And yet, the bill is strikingly similar to the dissident group Voice of the Faithful’s guidelines for working to change the structure of the Church.
Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport reacted to the legislation, calling it "a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.
"The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church," Bishop Lori stated.
The head of the Church in Bridgeport pointed out that the bill "is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion."
An essential source of more information about this bill is the "Fight 1098" page created by the Diocese of Bridgeport. It has links and breaking news, as well as video of Bishop William E. Lori talking about the bill and what can be done to fight it.
Tom Hoopes of National Catholic Register has additional information and links.
The Catholic Key blog argues that the bill is part of a game plan created, in part, by the dissident group "Voice of the Faithful."
Senator Michael McLachlan (R), responds to the bill:
This legislation seeks to eliminate bishops and pastors from all financial decisions of the Church. Currently, local parish corporations are governed by the bishop, diocesan administrator, pastor and two lay trustees as required in Canon Law. Senate Bill 1098 will change this to an elected board of directors of seven to thirteen lay members and will exclude the bishop and pastor. The pastor of the parish corporation will report to the board of directors.
This proposal turns the Catholic Church of Connecticut into a congregational church structure. The proponents claim this is necessary because of financial impropriety of two pastors from Darien and Greenwich in the past several years. McDonald and Lawlor claim the parishioners approached them for assistance making changes to the Catholic Church to hold the bishops accountable for their decisions.
Some would say this is an incredibly bold move by McDonald and Lawlor but the constitutional scholars say their proposal is a clear attack on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Republican Party of Connecticut has released a statement, which reads in part:
"Democrats have crossed the line between church and state," said Healy. "Mike Lawlor and Andrew McDonald are now saying that the state knows best when it comes to being church member. Every citizen of Connecticut, no matter what faith, should be frightened by this legislation."
In the words of Fr. Z: "This sounds like something directly from a Michael O’Brien novel." Yep,especially this one, this one, and this one.
Any word if people of other religious communities (Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, whatever) are stepping up to fight this? This clearly affects them as well.
Posted by: Bryan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 11:57 AM
There's no link to the proposed bill so I'm not speaking from knowledge here, but if it's a matter of incorporation then the state isn't forcing the Church to do anything (you don't use this exact language, but the article does).
I don't like this any more than you do, but this is yet another example of why the modern liberal separation of church and state is a double-edged sword. No one is forcing any religious body to incorporate, and there's no reason why the government shouldn't have complete control over the structure and benefits of incorporation.
This same thought runs through my mind during election seasons... I would love to see more political leg room for religious leaders to stand up for or denounce certain candidates as they are led by the Spirit, but I can't really say that rules for 501(c)(3) organizations are unjust. No one is forcing any religious body to accept tax-exempt status. In fact, there are many people who think that religious bodies shouldn't have this sort of privilege in the first place.
We should be thankful for the privileged status that we do have by the good graces of the civil law, and when we disagree with certain policies, I think we should speak our piece without saying that the state is "forcing" us to do anything. If that's how we understand the situation, then we've already made ourselves into appendages of the state.
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The problem with Evan's view of this is that he doesn't acknowledge where it's coming from.
It's one thing for the "state" to meddle with the temporal affairs of the Church in, say, the 13th century, when the "state" represented the temporal interests of a Catholic "tribe". It's something altogether different when the agnostic anonymous of the post-Enlightenment epoch (the American Republic and its semblables) uses positive law to direct the Church's affairs. The modern state is the enemy: We can't apply nice scholastic distinctions to its exercise of power. Or, in other words: It's not Our Lord's "Caesar" (pace the argument of that truly brilliant and courageous Archbishop of Denver).
Posted by: Robert Miller | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 01:18 PM
The real problem with Evan's post is that he has absolutely not the slightest idea about what is going on in Connecticut or with bills like this.
Voice of the "Faithful" has been pushing their demand - which no one was listening to - for a Congregationalist structure for the Catholic Church for at least 3-4 or more years here in CT. Please note that this dissident group makes up what - .0001% of the world-wide Catholic Church, yet THEY want the rest of the Church - up to the Pope - to acquiesce in this new Protestant reformation which would effectively destroy the Church?
It is disingenous to say, as the legislators do, that "no one has to do this." So even though it is the most blatantly unconstitutional thing that many constitutional scholars have EVER SEEN, we should still pass it because it "won't happen?" If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'l lsell you, cheap.
What you do not understand is how violently opposed to the Catholic Church this legislature is. If only you could read the transcripts of the brow-beating, bullying, and all-around DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH that goes on at hearings. Each and every one of these bills is just another salvo inv their all-out war to destroy us.
And what else you do not understand is that the bill doesn't even HAVE to pass. By forcing this bill to be read in every single parish in the state, VOTF now has their agenda before thousands upon thousands upon thousands MROE PEOPLE than would EVER show up at one of their meetings. And believe me, the state is FULL of poorly catechized Catholics who will jump on the bandwagon.
But fortunately there are enough intelligent and faithful Catholics who understand the ramifications of even presenting such a brazen attack on the church. Evan, I don't know if you know this, but it DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY Protestant, jewis, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim church or temple - ONLY the Church.
If you think for a minute that they have a right to do this, you MUST read the letter of constitutional lawyer Philip Lacovara on the Bridgeport Diocese website.
Connecticut is a war zone, and it is not going to stop. I have it on very, very good authority that a legislator actually spoke the words, "we will destroy you" in regard to the Church. Make no mistake -this is a hate crime, and it won't stop here. I am sure no one thought that in the 20th century it wouldbe against the law for priests to wear a cassock (Mexico) etc.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by: NW Clerk | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 01:49 PM
"The problem with Evan's view of this is that he doesn't acknowledge where it's coming from."
What does that have to do with any point that I made? The proposed bill either does or doesn't force the Church to do something (or "direct the Church's affairs", as you say). This stands regardless of who proposed it or what their motives were.
I welcome correction about the affect of the positive law, but I made no comment on the motive behind it, nor any comment for which the question of "where it's coming from" would be especially relevant.
When you claim "the modern state is the enemy", you should carefully consider: what kind of a Church would want to incorporate under such an enemy in the first place? I think you're being too bold in your assertions.
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 02:01 PM
I think motive (a/k/a intent) is everything in matters pertaining to the positive law. Most civil courts nowadays think so, too.
As NW Clerk points out, the Connecticut legislators intend to "destroy" the Catholic Church -- ecrasez l'infame, an agenda older than the French and American republics, but consonant with their "constitutional" foundations.
Posted by: Robert Miller | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 02:24 PM
The real problem with Evan's post is that he has absolutely not the slightest idea about what is going on in Connecticut or with bills like this.
This is closer to the mark, hence my original qualifiers. I see that Carl has added a link to the bill now, and I'll be sure to look at it. I very well may have been wrong... perhaps the condition of certain structures of oversight isn't based on the Church as incorporated. That's just the story that I usually hear when people are fussing about government "coercion", at least in the U.S.
I'd also add... you mention the poorly catechized faithful in CT, and the article mentions the priest convicted of stealing money. Great failings, both. The clergy abuse scandal also brings in its fair share of news stories. Isn't our Lord's instruction to take care of the plank in our own eye first and foremost? It's not that I disagree with anyone's criticism of the state here. Perhaps I just find reporting on that in particular rather out-of-season during this time of Lent.
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Okay, I've read the bill, as well as Lacovara's letter. What I don't understand, and what I would honestly welcome explanation about, is how a revision of corporate law constitutes a violation of the first amendment. In Lacovara's quote from Justice Brennan on religious liberty, for instance, I see a clear articulation of a religious body's freedom to govern itself in a hierarchical fashion. But is the "corporation organized in connection with any Roman Catholic Church or congregation" the same as such "internal church government" as is protected under the first amendment? Is the corporate body what the Vatican recognizes when it recognizes a bishop's diocese? If not, then why should the state of CT be construed as speaking of the Church hierarchy when it speaks of the corporate body in connection with it?
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Seems I recall, Evan, that Our Lord did not abstain, during his forty days in the desert, from countering the works and pomps of the prince of this world.
What probably ought to be retired during this holy season is reference to the gigantic red herring known as "the clergy abuse scandal".
Posted by: Robert Miller | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 02:54 PM
"Seems I recall, Evan, that Our Lord did not abstain, during his forty days in the desert, from countering the works and pomps of the prince of this world."
Seems I recall His eyes were rather clear to begin with. Nevermind the kai tote from the passage in Matthew that puts to rest your apparent fears that self-examination precludes any subsequent judgment.
"What probably ought to be retired during this holy season is reference to the gigantic red herring known as "the clergy abuse scandal"."
A red herring? Not to those who were abused. And not here either... no one's using the sex abuse scandal as a smokescreen; the bill in Connecticut has been the central point of every post in this comment section before your above quibbles.
And now we're back to the metaphorical plank. It's downright poetic when things come full circle like this, isn't it?
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Even - he who controls the purse controls the message. It's that simple.
or looked at another way, "Pick up your cross and follow Me" is now operational in CT. They just threw plan B at the Church (birth control pills in Catholic hospitals or else?)we are looking at the smoke of Satan and it's beginning to mix with the roar of the lions in the colosseum. It is and always will be till the end about good and evil. Looking at the fine print is but a diabolical distraction to confuse the real issue. The Church is hated for its message and must be destroyed or at least castrated, which is the intent of CT. S.B. 1098
Posted by: Don L | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Yes, a priest (whom I know -he baptized my child) did indeed steal a LOT of money. It doesn't follow that the state legislature can disingenuously use that as their excuse for a blatantly unconstitutional bill whose only purpose is to harass Catholics - especially when, after that event, the Diocese put into place a huge number of safeguards and we have a TOTALLY different system now. So the legislators even PRETENDING that this is the reason for the bill is just ludicrous, and no one in CT buys it - no one. It's a smokescreen.
I'm sorry if I sounded intemperate, but we are in the belly of the beast here and we need all the help we can get. When fellow Catholics say, "Oh, it isn't so bad" without knowing where it has been in this state and where it is leading..... well, it is discouraging.
Anti-religious laws always start with something that seems very easy, no big deal (Jews must wear a yellow star) but they NEVER STOP THERE. I know these two men who head the committee. I have seen them in action. This is just the beginning.
The bill "just" speaks of cutting off the Bishop and Priest from voting or having anything to sy about the legal, administrative, and financial aspects of the new "congregational" parish run by elected laity (who, in this state at least, are woefully ignorant of Church law, history, and tradition....egad, imagine the political parties that would form to elect the coolest lay person who would give them what they want! it boggles the mind). SO that is how it attacks the hierarchy - it is the en dof Apostolic Succession EXCEPT inthe FALSE DICHOTOMY of separating the "spiritual" from the "physical" - i.e., their disclaimer is that the Bishop is still allowed to teach the STRICTLY RELIGIOUS stuff! But we are not Gnostics, not Manichaen dualists!
This is not a mere revision of corporate law. In NO other case, and NO other religion, does the legislature want to enact laws about how the internal affairs are run. You simply CANNOT in the US single out one church for this kind of thing (or all churches, of course).
If you have read Lacovara's letter and everything else, and still think this is just revision of corporate law, as if the Catholic Church were Purina DOg Chow or something, then I honestly and truly have no idea what to say. The Catholic Church precedes the state, and the state has absolutely no right whatsoever, as constitutional lawyer and constitutional lawyer has pointed out, to tell it that it must end Apostolic Succession and begin uso n the road to Commujnist China's state-approved church and and underground church.... no, I can't do anymore. I'm speechless.
I have to leave on a business trip and I hope someone else from CT who knows what is happening can take over...
Posted by: NW Clerk | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Wait, before I go, here's more - the Republican Caucus UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES THE BILL: Here's a quote:
“Equally troubling is the fact that this bill singles out the Roman Catholic Church. The bill does not simply stop at ordering the Catholic Church how to organize itself. It also includes a provision that allows any person who believes money donated to any religious corporation has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was donated, to report their belief to the Attorney General, who must investigate the claim and take any action he deems necessary. How exactly does one determine the ‘intended purpose’ of private donations given to the church? Under this provision, any person, whether or not they are a member of the parish, may challenge any donation made to the church, whether its $5 placed in the offertory basket, or $5,000 donated to the Bishop’s appeal, subjecting the free speech rights of the Catholic Church to be challenged by the unfettered actions of the Attorney General. “For these reasons, the Senate Republican Caucus will vigorously oppose SB 1098 in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate.”
Posted by: NW Clerk | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 04:13 PM
"Looking at the fine print is but a diabolical distraction to confuse the real issue."
What distinguishes an incorporated religious body from the Church of Christ is anything but fine print, as far as I'm concerned. You're free to say otherwise at your own peril, but that isn't a stance I'm comfortable with taking.
That the Church is hated and people seek her destruction is nothing new. But I still need a response as to how this affects the Church hierarchy rather than the corporation in connection with it if I'm going to join the chorus here. In any case, if you don't deal with the fine print ahead of time, you'll just deal with it sans ample preparation in the Connecticut court system.
And the point remains... when you claim "the modern state is the enemy", you should carefully consider: what kind of a Church would want to incorporate under such an enemy in the first place? It's the easiest thing in the world to bemoan the sad necessity of taking up one's cross. To actually do so is a different affair. Show me a parish that has resisted incorporation for the purposes of tax-exempt status, and I'll show you a disciple willing to take up their cross under Caesar. Until then, I'm not very impressed by complaints about the changing of terms of special corporate privileges.
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 04:29 PM
This is not a mere revision of corporate law. In NO other case, and NO other religion, does the legislature want to enact laws about how the internal affairs are run. You simply CANNOT in the US single out one church for this kind of thing (or all churches, of course).
Yes, on this count I admit that it does seem to be a first amendment issue (and on this count it will likely fail in the courts... I'm shocked that the legislation is so sloppy here). But again, this isn't a matter of internal affairs unless you're equating the corporation with the Church. It's an affront to first amendment rights only because it targets the Catholic Church, as far as I can tell. If this were enacted for all applicable incorporated bodies (Protestant Churches, synagogues, etc.), I would still be against the bill, but not on first amendment grounds.
Posted by: Evan | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 04:40 PM
Evan :A Fr. Angel Soto posted this on the American Papist blog:
"The church has to register its organizations as corporations of non-profit status established for religious purposes. This clearly demarcates their operations as falling under First Amendment protections of the separation of church and state, as well as the First Amendment protections granted by judicial precedents to church's of hierarchical structure.
What Connecticut is saying is that those Supreme Court precedents should now be ignored because the state of Connecticut has a vested interest in altering the traditional governing structure of the Catholic Church.
If the Church were not properly registered, as a means of somehow escaping the state's proposed new regulation, it would give the state even further avenues of attack and intervention into the church's life on the grounds that it did not properly register its religious institutions and therefore has abdicated the rights conceded by courts to religious institutions."
Personally, I am not a lawyer and would like to see a lawyers perspective on this. I find it unlikely that prominent critics of the Church would pass legislation singling out the Church that would have no effect- what would be the point- so I am skeptical of your reading, but hope that you are right.
Posted by: Norman | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 05:30 PM
As the bill is written, filing for corporation status is voluntary. Give it a few years when everyone is comfy-cozy with this legislation and efforts will be made to make the filing mandatory. Those steps might seems incremental at the time but the cumulative effect will result in control of the purse strings by boards of directors. Wanna bet where their sympathies will lie?
Variation of the Golden Rule: He who controls the gold, gets to rule.
Its all about the Benjamins.
Posted by: Subvet | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Evan, I'd like to draw you out here and have your thoughts clarified for me, just so I know where you are coming from.
The way I am reading you, you are conceding that:
a) this legislation, if compulsory, would coercively change the internal governing structure of the Church
b) the hierarchical nature of the Church is an important part of Catholic theology
c) the government has no right to forcibly meddle in Catholic theology and the governing structure of the Church which flows from it
but d) this law does not mandate incorporation so it is therefore not compulsory. The internal structure and theology of the Church is not being effected, ie, the free exercise of Catholicism is not being hampered by state action, because compliance is voluntary.
Posted by: Norman | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 06:15 PM
The modern state is laicist in nature because it does not recognize the existence of the Catholic public thing (res publica). But the Catholic faith cannot exist without its public expression. So control or suppression of the corporate public life of the Catholic Church is ipso facto anti-Catholic. The Protestant sects have no existence outside the "tolerance" of the First Amendment -- therefore, they can accommodate any restrictions the state may impose, so long as those restrictions are "fair" within the interpretation by courts of positive law.
Posted by: Robert Miller | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 08:34 PM
Please forgive any grammatical errors that you may spot in this quickly written piece. I can’t believe there is someone on this blog who thinks that this proposed law is rational. Or maybe this person did not grow up as an American & thus does not understand the true meaning of separation of Church & State as expressed in the US Constitution and the country’s cultural heritage.
This proposed bill has nothing to do with tax exempt status & incorporating. (If it did non religious not-for-profit corporations would also be affected.) but everything to do with religious organizations, more specifically the Catholic Church, which is specifically stated in the bill. The postings by NW Clerk explain the proposed bill clearly enough for everyone to understand.
Quite simply this is payback time from the radical homosexuals. The 3 bishops in my state were vocal in denouncing the homosexual marriage law before it was passed in 2008. Those 2 reps are outspoken gays. - Can’t say anything more about that!
It’s also payback time from VOTF. As far as I know Bishop Lori of Bridgeport never met w/ anyone from VOTF and denied them access to church properties. Apparently the auditing checks that were put in place in the diocese after the fraudulent events that occurred at St John’s in Darien was not enough to appease them.
Also, I was told that a few vocal people also at St John’s parish were upset on how the diocese handled the PR at the time more than the crime that was committed. When is the Church good w/PR? More importantly this says something about those parishioners: PR is more important than finding the facts. This is indicative of the attitude that the least catechized Catholics have towards the Universal Church. Now there are at least 3 disgruntled groups who want to control the CT Church.
Out of the 3 groups,VOTF is the most evil. Their raison d’etre seems to circulate around control of the diocesan finances & Church theology. They want the Church to incorporate lay trusteeism in their structure. If they can’t achieve it by way of personal intervention then they’re do it by way of cooperating w/like minded to shove their agenda by way of state laws. The ignorant Catholics in my state do not understand the ramifications of state interference w/religion. Most Catholics in CT are taught in the public school system, an adequate system at best. Please keep in mind that CT along w/the rest of New England has the longest history of anti-Catholicism compared to the rest of the country. It takes many generations to breed out the prejudices. Now these bigots are teaching our kids.
Posted by: Jeannine | Monday, March 09, 2009 at 09:55 PM
"but d) this law does not mandate incorporation so it is therefore not compulsory. The internal structure and theology of the Church is not being effected, ie, the free exercise of Catholicism is not being hampered by state action, because compliance is voluntary."
This isn't quite the heart of my point, although I do agree with it (though I also agree with Subvet that creeping state action presents a danger of compulsion in the future). The heart of what I'm saying, however, is this: the incorporated body in connection to any religious body is a different thing entirely than the religious body itself. That the state is changing corporate law means that they are changing the requirements of the structure of the corporate body through which the Church mediates its legal status with the state; it does not mean that the Church hierarchy itself is being changed, as far as I can tell (and from the beginning I have always asked for correction on this... while I've seen opposition, I haven't seen a direct explanation of why the corporate body should be considered the same as the Church hierarchy).
" I can’t believe there is someone on this blog who thinks that this proposed law is rational."
If this is meant to refer to me, then I think you need to reread my posts. I've never said that this proposed law is rational, nor have I supported it in any way. I think that it's a bad law, and I hope it fails. When I said in my first post, "this is yet another example of why the modern liberal separation of church and state is a double-edged sword", I did speak of two edges, didn't I? I do think that this cuts, and I do think that it should be opposed. How you miss that, I'm not sure. All I'm arguing here is that I can't see how the state is destroying the Church hierarchy unless the Church hierarchy is equated with the corporate body in connection with the Church. In which case (I hate to say it folks) we've already lost the battle long ago by incorporating in the first place.
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 06:22 AM
[from Norman's quote of Fr. Soto]
"If the Church were not properly registered, as a means of somehow escaping the state's proposed new regulation, it would give the state even further avenues of attack and intervention into the church's life on the grounds that it did not properly register its religious institutions and therefore has abdicated the rights conceded by courts to religious institutions."
This seems convincing to me, and it's another point where I'd admit that we may be encroaching on 1st amendment territory. Even more, this gets back to the larger critique of modern liberalism, the separation of church & state, and religious toleration. But that brings into question more than just this law... that means that any terms of incorporation, however reasonable, might as well be compulsory. It seems to me that the most appropriate legal response would be some language or other about the undue nature of the regulations placed on the churches in this proposed legislation.
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 06:32 AM
Here's an excellent article from the American Spectator describing best about the events & people involved. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/10/power-politics-and-freedom-of.
I find the comment by Mike of Vermont to be a typical response from an insufficiently catechized & most likely, cradle Catholic.
Thank you converts for joining the Catholic Church & trying to show all of us the straight & narrow path to God w/your dedication & witness!
Posted by: Jeannine | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 07:38 AM
"I find the comment by Mike of Vermont to be a typical response from an insufficiently catechized & most likely, cradle Catholic."
Could you explain this further?
He seems to be making much the same argument as I am, i.e., financial auditing, bookkeeping, and administrative sort of tasks, as well as the bodies that manage such affairs, are separate from episcopal authority.
Perhaps we need someone like Ed to comment. But isn't this entirely within the confines of normal church practice? I'm interpreting the corporation in CT (or any other) law as something like the institutes for the administration of goods of canon 1274. Am I wrong in making this sort of connection? Is this what Mike from VT is referring to?
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 09:49 AM
Okay Evan, I'm glad I asked for clarification. From this Catholic's perspective I was misreading your argument. I guess we have a different view of what the hierarchical structure of the Church means. I myself don't see what remains of that structure if Bishops and Priests cede control of their parishes to lay boards. It is certainly not the business of the state to weigh in on this.
A purely symbolic hierarchy in practical, day-to-day concerns is no hierarchy at all. Without the ability to govern parishes, what would Bishops be for and what practical power would they have? Could they discipline heterodox priests and parishes under this bill? It would seem hard to do; I can definitely see it leading to protracted legal struggles. I can envision lay boards refusing the appointment of priests, or chasing out those whose sermons, theology or liturgical style they did not like. Again, why should the state force us into this position? Lay trusteeship- Americanism- has already been tried in America and was found wanting.
The ability of the Church to speak with one voice will also be eviscerated. On controversial matters the media will play up conflicts between priests and lay councils. "Bishop X says Y, but board president R says Z! Who's the real Catholic? You decide- news at 11!" It's an invitation to chaos. Again, why should the possibility of suh things be forced upon us? Where is the states power here?
I'm also troubled by the vagueness around the clause allowing priests and bishops control over "purely religious" matters. What will this mean on the ground when the lawyers of Connecticut get hold of it? My hunch is that the functional meaning of that clause will shrink to nothingness, probably the mechanical distribution of the sacremnets and nothing else. Remember, all legal maters become arguments over the meaning of words, and in a politicized judicial system- and all jusdicial systems are to one degree or another- there is no guarantee that generally understood, common sense meanings will prevail. Witness the fact that us two Catholics are in disagreement over just what a hierarchical structure entails. Now imagine the Catholic Church being assailed by hostile lawyers.
Posted by: Norman | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM
"I guess we have a different view of what the hierarchical structure of the Church means. I myself don't see what remains of that structure if Bishops and Priests cede control of their parishes to lay boards. It is certainly not the business of the state to weigh in on this."
I think it would be more accurate to say that we have a different view of how structures of financial oversight work in various situations of local civil law, and how this affects the function of church life and its hierarchical structure. I'm still curious about the connection between this and canon 1274, especially §5.
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM
All I'm arguing here is that I can't see how the state is destroying the Church hierarchy unless the Church hierarchy is equated with the corporate body in connection with the Church. In which case (I hate to say it folks) we've already lost the battle long ago by incorporating in the first place.
Perhaps Dr. Peters can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the very possibility of incorporation has its origin in Canon Law. Diocese and parishes have long been treated as juridical persons with rights and duties separate from those of their bishops, pastors and laity. This is a result of the practical application of hierarchical nature of the Church because it leaves parishes without a pastor still under he control of the local ordinary and vacant sees still under the control of the Roman Pontiff.
So I fail to see how incorporating makes us the losers. We were incorporating long before the secular authorities had any laws dealing with incorporation at all. Diocese and parishes are the original corporate bodies. Viewing incorporation as purely a business thing is ahistorical and erroneous. The Church isn't being run on a business model. Businesses are trying to run themselves on the Church's model. Thus an attack on that model as used by the Church is indeed an attack on the Church's hierarchical nature.
Posted by: brendon | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM
"So I fail to see how incorporating makes us the losers."
I agree with you completely, hence my "in which case". I think that we've lost the battle only if it's first recognized as true that the Church hierarchy and the corporate body recognized under civil law are the same thing... something that I've from beginning to end quite clearly stated I don't think is the case. This seems to be what everybody else is arguing for, and what I'm opposing. I never say that I actually think that the Church has lost the battle by incorporating under local civil law.
Nor do I dispute the fact that civil law has borrowed a lot from canon law. That doesn't change the fact that the current question is about current civil law.
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You should know that the "priest" who stole the $1m did so to spend on his GAY lover and both DEMOCRATS who submitted the bill are OPENLY GAY too. Hummmmm.
Posted by: Matt | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 01:01 PM
"I think it would be more accurate to say that we have a different view of how structures of financial oversight work in various situations of local civil law, and how this affects the function of church life and its hierarchical structure."
My disagreement is that this change in the structure of financial oversight would strip bishops of effective control over their parishes in actual practice regardless of whether or not it can be read consistently with canon 1274.
Is this canon 1274? http://canonlaw.wikispot.org/Book_5
Please be charitable now, I am not acquainted with canon law, but it seems clear to me that beyond legalistic hair-splitting the practical effect of this bill would be to sever the bishops authority over their parishes, harm discipline and hamper the Church's ability to speak with one voice. I do welcome the expert commentary on the technical aspects of this bill, but it simply looks and quacks like a duck to me.
Posted by: Norman | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 02:23 PM
"Please be charitable now, I am not acquainted with canon law"
Don't worry, I'm not claiming any expertise either... someone like Ed Peters may very well come on here and tell me that I'm wrong. I had been reading from the Vatican site, which seems to offer a more fleshed out English translation. I may be wrong about the applicability. It simply seemed applicable to me, so I threw it out there. But I have no formal training in canon law, and I offer this as a tentative suggestion rather than a strong stance.
Posted by: Evan | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 02:51 PM
That is a much better translation, thank you! This is a very interesting discussion and I look forward to other people weighing in on it. I've reached the limit of my expertise and so I'll sit back and read and learn from now on. A person can't educate himself without asking questions and putting his own thoughts forward, which is what I've been attempting to do. I hope no one minds my having waded into these waters, and I definitely hope the discussion continues. It is falling down the topic list, sadly.
Posted by: Norman | Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 03:19 PM